



v - v' 

.0 9 s * *'♦ V * f • C\ <0 -* 

%j-A S% ^ a ,>Va° ^ a * 



«<A 

* <£>' ^ XX$J* ,\^ 

■** *«a* >, ... 

A s ..... % »* 


\0 * 7 * 

* tt. •* 



/ i j /^ v rv 

'»•'•* *< 


H O 

v;^ y V'^y .. v 

V * !_ V° <• O t *0 s ’^ v 

^ A * 

^ - vv 





A 

- w ^™.,. 

•.w^.* '-%#.° <?% *. 

* v v „ « „«. v -r s w^ , » x * 

'° •» <A &, '*•** A 

“- ',° .‘J^!. °o > 4 ’ .-^L*. ** 

: ^bv* -W 

a* °^ »° % 

«> O _o ^ V 

^ °^ * *' 1 * f° <^> * 0 - 0 

, cv .0 *> V 

* 


* tx' / |UYv<S>^ 0 <?• ^ 

^ *%HYVXS** > NT 

d- -* «. p c 

Q> * • » o ’ A 

. v t " * 

<• --V A * . fZ & • 




4 O 
° ^ 

o -. rr. • ’ f 0 ' ^ '* .TT«- V J ' % -.. v . 

“I,’ 0 ' a 0 *!AL% x> v c*. a? 

* ^@fe' w : mS£\ ^ : 

* ,/\ -Si# ** v % \ 

«V w * * A° „ % *'•-** A '• • * 

iN * ip y// . -v, , 7 » 

' A c 


A W /\ 

A "o • »* .0 

# . • "A! -, %■ . 0 * .«!-V., 


*??.>' A <r. -•.. * ,0 

b o r^-,% / 

^ y *y&y- * . « 0 ' 

o v . fef^a - v* 0 X 






- V 7 IM^ Wo < 

' ^ * 30 ^.* 

^ •■• %v 

V ^ T 

* 




? * C$ ^r, J >iiEi21l7 ® aV*\ 

A o* ^5 a 

, 0 ^ C ° “ ♦ ^O A^ . 1 ' * * 


'« . * * «G 

V c° 0 

A 0 * ' 


• ’ f° 

^ v> 

n c * 7 - y * 

\a V 0 ** y*\ v 

: .l 

‘ ^ * ,&* +<3 'O 


4 O 
?? ^ 


V 

■ ■ V '• .To •■ °o, '* rr. • ** . 0 ° 

^ -*>^* - - >:*»'•. \ / ,s 

..»««««. *** : 

* 


rrr^ a 

0 A *%• 




• w ^ # 

V ^ & » 



.- .. V'^'A ^‘TT-’ / Vi 





.0*0^ '*P‘, 




o A % 

■*b +*. a 


• • 


»$>» 


0 - 


b V 


<?> 


° A ♦ 

: ^ v 

* A V *V o 
V ^ « 



, * 


0 ” 0 °/» * ♦ IO 


;• > s % 

* .6* t, -, 

’ ^ < '* 

V* (y 

• l 

^ •.;-••• ^ * ^T'* .0° 


^ 11 i ‘ < 0 ^ ,»*^L' 

** ** / / . 


o * .. * 4 A < - 

o a ^ «»•'»- 

° .<r / 

I," ’’b v* : 

r: »° ^ 

.‘ „0 %. * 




*• ^ * V**-« 

V^ « t /« <$> 

A * 

• > bv* 



.■vi\w».%* A' ^ 

f v ,.., V/'- 0 ’ <** 

»* .rw'* V* 




o 0 ^1 

\ v c b, "’ * /1 • a 0 

V" »’*®- c\ . 0 * , 5 V“% v 

*$. 0 v^ * A §g/h,° <$► * 


© 

A v<a o % / 7^5^Vv v’ : * ^f\ -* -> ,vn t -1 © A^ 

*'"’ S ^ < b .'°’‘’ 1 A°* <\ <■ 

’ J *f> f 0 <■ "A” ♦ *b V^ . i'«„ '<s> 

< r M o 






• ^ «, v -li'i:- y s ^ 


^ • 


v*-V “ 


* ^ 0^ 


A 'Z' 

** r / \ ->**., . 
.Cj .»*», % jV 


t ^ <? • 


V 

y A 'S. % - 


r , <£ V \ 

^ A ^ % 




S o 


^.’’ ~«<V 


\ 0 *?*, 

4 ^ *. 


A w <J> * o w o ° ^, 

^ s 1 *' % 

% ^ ^ '*$b*\ u > •’ 


: . 

• A V -V * 

. , -!! i ®^** v > • 

o. *'..! 5 A <V 

A 4 , • ‘A % 

. w A ? 3 / ~ yr ”' a T 

'^O K . 




wv r^- 

o > . 

^°’ 
0 * O o \ 

• • •» * 

•o ** 4 > v‘—'•* 

^ CA * 

: ^ ^ • 

* ^ • 



°**" ‘^’ & -Vs 5 A <\ 'o , * * ,( 


■. <£ \ \ 

•* . ( y % . ,. 

*1* 6> 
f ,*^v t * 

* ,1 ♦ 

* ^ ,'v ■* 

o V 

O. * * *0 * 7 * • 

« -a.^ o *■ ‘ V 4:''' ; 'v , % 0 *^y * 

0*0°^ o .0 ^ * e ;- 0 o ^ 

♦ > V i> ,# °^ C' ,0^ %»’*' 

V t jA w{r/Vi «• ^ 



v>. A 




























































































































PRICE 15 CENTS : to be had of the author, in Washington City, and of the principal book stores 


HISTORY 


OP THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 


OF THE 


THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, 


1S55--185'7, 


BY F. F. C. TRIPLETT. 


(Copyright secured according to law in the Washington District Court.) j 


WASHINGTON : 

HE^RY POLKINHORN, PRINTER. 

1857. 






















ADVERTISEMENT. 


For having expressed my opinion under oath that many measures of the 
'last Congress were influenced by mercenary considerations, the House of 
Representatives falsely declared that I was one of its reporters, in order 
falsely to assert that I had violated the obligations of one. Without a mo¬ 
ment’s notice that any charge was contemplated against me, I was arraigned, 
tried, and convicted in two minutes. There was no honest man in or out of 
Congress, acquainted with the facts, who did not pronounce it a gross arid 
dastardly outrage. Such a proceeding, however, would naturally commend 
itself to the favor of the conductor of Harper’s Magazine, the literary Jack 
Shepard of the day. Accordingly he varied his usual occupation of pilfering 
other people’s labors by publishing, under pretence of a report, an original 
falsification of this Congressional falsehood, and when his attention was 
-called to it, made amends by republishing the same untruth with a varia¬ 
tion. As I am no author and he has consequently never had the opportunity 
to steal any production of mine, I cannot conceive the motive of his hostil¬ 
ity. 

Under these circumstances I am compelled to come forward in my own 
vindication, and I know no better way of effecting this than to give a truth¬ 
ful history of ray accusers. I shall, with a fearless hand, tear the veil from 
every act of corruption I can ferret out, and I invite all who are acquainted 
with facts bearing on this subject, to aid me with their knowledge. But 1 
shall not confine myself to this disgusting branch of the History of the House. 
Many important measures were passed upon, many important principles 
discussed, many interesting scenes enacted, and these I shall endeavor to 
present in the same impartial manner which IE think all will accord at leas* 
to the political presentations of this first part. 





HISTORY 





OF THE 


HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES jjy 

OF THE 

THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, 

1855 -- 1857 , 

BY F. F. C. TRIPLETT. 

«* 

■ 

(Copyright secured according to law in the Washington District Court.) 


WASHINGTON : 

HENRY FOLKINHORN, PRINTER. 

1857. 















- .. •.rrrT r - WV ,.• 







HISTORY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 
THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. 


Election of Speaker . 

The 34th Congress of the United States convened at Wash¬ 
ington city on the first Monday (3d day) of December, 1855, 
and at 12 o’clock the House of Representatives was called to 
order by John W. Forney, the clerk of the preceding House. 
It was composed of two hundred and thirty-four members and 
seven delegates, all of whom, except eight of the former and 
two of the latter, answered to their names. The first business 
in order was the election of a Speaker, and as the various 
parties had held their preliminary caucuses, or at least had had 
free conferences, nominations were promptly made. 

The first was that of Humphrey Marshall, of Kentucky, a 
gentleman liberally endowed by nature, of pretty general cul¬ 
tivation, not unversed in politics, having for some years been 
an ardent Democrat, then elected to Congress as a Whig, whence 
Mr. Fillmore sent him as Commissioner to China, after his re¬ 
call from which mission by Mr. Pierce, he now appeared again 
upon the stage, acting with that latest sect which aimed to su¬ 
persede old party organizations by new tests. Cogent in sus¬ 
taining his own views, prompt in replying to others; always 
fluent, sometimes eloquent, with great kindliness of manner, 
and no bigoted devotee of persons or opinions; he had many 
admirers and no enemies. His claims were pressed by that 
branch of the Know Nothing party afterwards distinguished as 
National Americans. 

A few of these, however, together with a small number of 
the advocates of the restoration of the Missouri Compromise 
line, preferred Henry M. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, whose intel¬ 
lectual qualifications for the position were never so conspicu¬ 
ously displayed as were his loyalty to truth and his moral 
courage, on a subsequent occasion, which lost him the support 




4 


of his Freesoil friends and gained him the respect of all 
parties. 

The National Democrats, always exhibiting the accurate 
drill of the camp, presented an unbroken front on William A. 
Richardson, of Illinois, who, devoid of eloquence, accomplish¬ 
ments, or personal polish, yet commanded support by his po¬ 
litical boldness, his frankness and geniality in private life, and, 
above all, by his unflinching advocacy of the Kanzas-Nebraska 
bill, if not by his consistent interpretation of its principles. 

A large majority of the Republicans had agreed to unite on 
Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, a man then of more national repu¬ 
tation than any of his party in the House; bold and vehement 
in debate, yet personally acceptable to his adversaries; not 
capable, perhaps, of surveying the wide field of statesmanship, 
but seizing readily upon such objects as came within the sphere 
of his vision; who had gone, step by step, with his section, in 
their gradual progress from old-fashioned Whigism to modern 
Republicanism. 

Perhaps it was this fact, that he had chosen rather to march 
with the column than to skirmish far in its front, which induced 
many of his own side at the outset to repudiate him and rally 
around Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, who had left 
the Democrats to join the Know Nothings, and was suspected 
in turn to have abandoned these, when lie resolved to unite his 
with the more prosperous fortunes of Republicanism. Of grave 
and saturnine aspect, he combined great quickness of intellect 
with great coldness of heart; ambitious and self-involved, of 
happy delivery, chaste style, and an admirable renovator of 
cast-off ideas; flexible in seeming, yet firm of purpose; he 
would have held more than a middling station in any legisla¬ 
tive body, and might well aspire to the first in the one into 
which he had been thrown. 

Still another segment of the party acknowledged for their 
leader, Alexander C. M. Pennington, of New Jersey; but 
since, whatever may have been the original design, he in fact 
was used rather as a rack on which to hang the cloaks their 


5 


owners would resume in time, than as a living personage in the 
melee, it is unnecessary to characterize him, any more than 
others who occasionally served the same purpose. 

On the first call, Richardson received 74 votes; Campbell, 
53 ; Marshall, 30; Banks, 21; Fuller, 17; scattering, 30.* 
After fifteen votings had been taken, Mr. Marshall’s name was 
withdrawn. The next vote stood, for Richardson, 73 ; Camp¬ 
bell, 62 ; Fuller, 21; Banks, 18; scattering, 44.f 

On the 14th voting, (given Wednesday, December 5th) Mr. 
Campbell attained eighty-one votes; hut, finding himself con¬ 
stantly declining in strength after that, immediately succeed¬ 
ing the 23d call, he withdrew his name under this remarkable 
explanation : “It is obvious to me that it is impossible for my 
friends to succeed unless I can perform one of three conditions; 
to repudiate my well-known principles in reference to slavery, 
my views on Americanism, or in some way, directly or indi¬ 
rectly, to make pledges with regard to the forming of commit¬ 
tees, which will amount to a sacrifice of my self respect, and 
make me, in my opinion, a fit object for public contempt. % 
Eight days afterwards, when pressed to reveal the secrets of 
this base intrigue, he refused to be put on the the witness 
stand, as he termed it, but emphatically declared, “I am re¬ 
sponsible, not only to those with whom I act politically, but to 
my political opponents, for everything I uttered on that occa¬ 
sion ; I take not back one single word; I bide my time, sir, for 

explanations, if any are necessary.” 

The idea that any party seriously proposed to barter for a 
surrender of Mr. Campbell’s principles, is simply preposter¬ 
ous. No man was so fatuous as to suppose that the motive of 
his defection from frequently and earnestly avowed convictions 
could for a moment be concealed, or that when it was under¬ 
stood, he could carry with him a single follower in the House 
or a single constituent at home to compensate for the infamy 
of the bargain. Nor was there any possible means of furnish- 


^Congressional Globe, December 3d. 
JC. G., December 6th. 


|C. G., December 6th. 





6 


mg the proposed reward. The Democrats had solemnly af- 

fi med their determination to vote for no one who did no^ de- 

K a ” Ce * ee ‘ sw lsm > Amerl0anism , and all opposition to the 

aet ; and they couid “»*» ** ~ 
n ' , h National Americans were still weaker than the 

f a ZZ1 T CertaiDly ha - supported an apes- 

tate from their party, even if he had the donbtfnl merit of desert- 

mg another at the same time. It is ovirlpnf ? 

Mr i . 11 18 e ™ent, therefore, that 

Mr. Campbell dragged m this impossible hypothesis to avoid 

• kriaging ou( tk /£"“ “ 
y, on the ballot preceding his withdrawal, to secure his 

committees^Tv wh^h * "" for P**™ ™ ‘he 

committees, by which power or profit might be won for them- 

beflTth 1 ™ 6 * hat af ‘ er thi f Statement had been three weeks 
press as Ce^as^’r^ 6 SUbjeCt ° f indi S nant comment by the 

forceddwkrWthl't 6111 ’ ^ essa y ed to break its 

P Iedges\f1^ d — 

Whether the same object Ld bee^^^ 

ian W3S ^ that Pick - Ck - 

ceived j s Tet hB e t " ;" , explanati0QS sre con- 

-i tTSfjsr: *"» 

that of so many of his own party ‘reacherous rum of 

of Mr"Penningt'r ^ 

love, a the 

—-cot pr ove t hat they originated in the 

* c< G., December 27 . ~——- 


7 


same mind. One of them is unfolded in a letter of Mr. Gid- 
dings to a paper published in his district, and afterwards cop¬ 
ied into the N. Y. Tribune. “On Tuesday,” says the letter— 
Mr. Campbell’s highest vote was attained the next day—“on 
Tuesday, it was proposed to give Mr. Campbell as high a vote 
as we could, preparatory to leaving him and concentrating upon 
some other candidate. One gentleman of N. Y., informed me 
that it was agreed to go for Mr. Banks, of Massachusetts, 
next, and when we had given him as high a vote as we could, we 
should then elect Mr. Pennington, of N. J. He did not say 
by whom such agreement had been entered into. Mr. Camp¬ 
bell’s vote was raised, by the efforts of Mr. Banks’s friends, to 
81; but Mr. Campbell’s friends were unwilling to have him 
withdraw. They thought such a majority ought not to yield 
to a minority. But it should be borne in mind that this ma¬ 
jority was in a large proportion made up of members who pre¬ 
ferred other candidates, but who were induced to vote for Mr. 
Campbell in order to gratify him and his friends, and place 
him in a situation to withdraw honorably. As his friends did 
not withdraw his name, members began to lead off on to Mr. 
Banks, until Campbell’s vote fell down to 45.”* 

According to this, the plan, it will be seen, was to fool Mr. 
Campbell to the top of his bent; then to please Mr. Banks 
with a ring or two of the rattle, and finally to concentrate upon 
and elect Mr. Pennington. But at this very same time Mr. 
Banks was meditating the same scheme of perfidy against his 
associates and co-laborers. On the 16th January, 1856, Mr. 
Dunn, of Indiana, stated in his place that, “ after Mr. Camp¬ 
bell’s name had been withdrawn, the friends of Mr. Banks did 
not wish that the anti-Nebraska men should concentrate their 
votes upon him at once. They wanted them to scatter or throw 
off, until it was seen that Mr. Pennington and other anti-Ne¬ 
braska candidates should exhaust their force, and their election 
be found impracticable, and have their names withdrawn.” 
Mr. Brenton, of the same State, who had been steadily voting 


C. G., January 9, 1856. 



8 


for Mr. Banks, said, “ when Mr. Campbell’s name was with-' 
drawn, the friends of Mr. Banks approached me and requested 
me not to vote for Mr. Banks now, saying that Mr. Banks did 
not desire it —that his friends were to vote for somebody else 
just then. I replied that I was afraid whfen Mr. Banks got 
ready I might not be ready, and I accordingly cast my vote 
for Mr. Banks, and continued to vote for him.” Mr. Penning¬ 
ton said he had been apprised that a scheme was concocted, in 
a certain quarter, to run him up to a certain point, and then 
drop him and kill him off out of the way of other candidates. 
At one o’clock at night he was obliged, in self-defence, to 
make his way through the dark passages of this city to the 
headquarters where he supposed this scheme w~as concocted, 
and there protest against “ this foul and unnatural murder.” 
No denial or explanation was attempted. 

It is true that Mr. Sage, of N. Y., known as an obsequious 
tool of Mr. Banks, solemnly declared he had voted in good faith 
for Mr. Pennington, but he had a few minutes before with equal 
solemnity affirmed that he uniformly voted for Mr. Campbell 
until that gentleman withdrew his name, while Mr. Dunn showed 
from the record that his first eleven votes were for Mr. Banks, 
then six for Mr. Campbell, at the very time it was proposed to 
gratify him with a vote to withdraw upon, then four for Mr. 
Pennington, and then two for Mr. Campbell, after it had been 
shown they could do that gentleman no good. Mr. Sage’s 
friends were not astonished at his hardiness of assertion, nor 
himself abashed at its exposure, since it was not the only lapsus 
in which he was detected during the day. 

And here I cannot omit remarking upon the mistaken views 
of party leaders in general, who employ the best talents at 
their command in the exposition of their principles and policy, 
content to leave the often more important duty of supporting 
these by timely fabrications to the lowest intellects. But in 
truth, the latter office requires by far the subtlest genius; for 
men listen, in political discussions, only to that which favors 
their previous convictions, with not much more discrimination 


9 


between absurd sophistry and keen argumentation than an os¬ 
trich makes between a brickbat and a French roll, while an 
ill-conceived falsehood injures the usefulness of the bungling 
artist , and brings some contempt upon his cause. 

Immediately after Mr. Campbell’s withdrawal, Richardson 
received 71 votes; Banks, 41; Fuller, 19; Pennington, 18; 
scattering, 80; of which more than sixty were Republican. 
This lack of concentration was owing, doubtless, chiefly to the 
management just disclosed, but partly to the fact that there 
were some Know Nothing members anxious to support Mr. 
Banks, who yet feared to do so without some assurance that 
their peculiar views on Americanism would not be disregarded 
in the organization of the House. It was probably to quiet 
their fears that the arrangement shadowed in the following 
resolution adopted in a secret meeting headed by Mr. Giddings, 
was made : “ That w r e will support no man for Speaker who is 
4 not pledged to carry out the parliamentary law, by giving to 
4 each proposed measure ordered by the House to be committed, 
4 a majority of such special committee; and to organize the 
4 standing committees of the House by placing on each a ma¬ 
jority of the friends of freedom, who are favorable to making 
4 reports on all petitions presented to them.”* Which meant, 
as Mr. Giddings explained, that 44 when a Know Nothing 
brings forward a proposition to change or repeal the laws of 
naturalization, he is entitled to a respectful hearing.” So, he 
continued, are Anti-Know Nothings, pro-slavery, and anti¬ 
slavery men, and all classes and parties. As, however, even 
Mr. Banks could hardly promise to give the friends and oppo¬ 
nents of foreign immigrants’ suffrage, each, a majority of the 
Judiciary Committee, or the friends and opponents of the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska bill, each, a majority of the Territorial Commit¬ 
tee, it is probable the pledge privately exacted was less com¬ 
prehensive than the interpretation publicly given. 

Mr. Campbell denied that any such test had been proposed 
to him, thus making it certain that the negotiation he had de¬ 
nounced referred to particular persons, and not to general 


2 


*C. G., December 18, 1855. 



10 


policy, about his views of which, indeed, neither Republicans 
nor Know Nothings could entertain any doubt. Mr. Banks 
blandly repelled all knowledge of the meeting, the reso¬ 
lution and the pledge, though the gentlemen so solemnly com¬ 
mitted to support no unpledged person continued to vote for 
him. And Mr. Giddings protested that the pledge he had 
spoken of was one to be gathered from the past history, and 
not the present promises, of the candidate. Surely never was 
midnight meeting called for so little purpose as that which 
bound this gentleman and his friends to sustain none other than 
a Republican candidate, unless, indeed, apprehensive of being 
tempted beyond their strength by the Delilah of pro-slaveryism, 
they deemed it necessary to secure their virtue by a public 
vow, and take the Nation to witness that no blandishments 
should seduce them to support one known to be hostile to the 
Wilmot Proviso. 

Whatever were the object of the resolution or the nature of 
the assurances received under it, all idea of rallying under 
any hut Mr. Banks were speedily abandoned, and he rose to 
86, to 100, and on the 11th of December to 10T, in the near 
neighborhood of which he remained until the contest closed. 

On the 19th of December, sixty-four votings having been had, 
Mr. Fuller, apprehending his position not to be correctly under¬ 
stood, voluntarily declared, That he had supported the com¬ 
promise measures of 1850; that had he been in Congress at the 
time, he would have voted against the Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
as deeming it an unwise provocation of renewed agitation 
on the slavery question; that for the same reason he would now 
vote against its repeal; and that he would vote for the admis¬ 
sion of Kansas, if her application were otherwise regular, with¬ 
out reference to her decision to admit or to prohibit slavery. A 
member from his State promptly declared, if he had known 
these to be Mr. Fuller’s views, he would rather have lost an 
arm than accorded him his support, and all his freesoil adhe¬ 
rents at once deserted him. The declaration itself had been 
superinduced by an animated debate then going on in the House, 


11 


the object of which was to determine the party that was proper¬ 
ly responsible for its continued disorganization. 

The Republicans contended that it was absurd to expect them 
to yield their candidate, upon whom they had concentrated 
more votes than any other division of the House upon its own. 
That they constituted the true National party, since they repre¬ 
sented a majority of the majority of the people of the Union, 
which majority was sustaining the principles enunciated in the 
Declaration of Independence; inaugurated in the ordinance of 
1787; carried out by the early action of the Constitutional 
Government, and approved by all the fathers of the Repub¬ 
lic. That the Democrats were essentially sectional, basing 
their party upon the one idea of slavery-propagandism, in doing 
which they had forced the compromise of 1820 upon the North; 
had unsettled this by that of 1850, which they promised should 
be a finality, and now, in violation of justice and good faith, 
were requiring their dupes to submit to another pretended final¬ 
ity, in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. They complained, too, that, 
that was a measure of delusion, *for while they of the South 
held that it carried slavery into every Territory, its Northern 
adherents claimed that this institution could be planted in such 
Territory only by a direct vote of its inhabitants, and hence 
that the free States would retain all they possessed before, and 
gain south of the old compromise line. Finally, that they 
would vote for no one who would not restore to the North the 
rights violated by the Kansas-Nebraska iniquity. 

The Americans urged that it was impossible for them to co¬ 
alesce with the Republicans, who were stirring up a fierce sec¬ 
tional strife, and founding all their hopes upon the perpetuation 
of geographical divisions. That many of this party had crept 
into their councils at the North, pretending to advance their 
views whilst solely intent on their own, and having by this 
means acquired power, openly derided those whom they had 
betrayed. That, without inquiring into a man’s past opinions, 
they, (the Americans,) received him into fellowship, if he would 
discountenance all future unfraternal discussions on slavery, 


12 


would abide by the present legislation on that subject as a 
finality, and would recognize the right of each Teritory, when 
applying for admission as a State, to regulate this matter for 
itself. That this principle, for the present overshadowing in 
importance all others, since it involved the perpetuity of the 
Union, and not simply the mode of conducting its affairs, pre¬ 
sented a common ground on which they and the Democratic 
party might have united in organizing the House, had not the 
latter rudely and insultingly cut off all chance of accommoda¬ 
tion, by pronouncing, in their nominating caucus, “ the party 
known as Know Nothings/’ to be the enemies of civil and reli¬ 
gious liberty. That under these circumstances, they could not 
without dishonor vote for the nominees of that caucus, nor for 
any one who participated in its deliberations. 

The Democrats derided the claim to Nationality of the Re¬ 
publicans, who were engaged in a contest against the institu¬ 
tions of half the States ; who had not voted and would not vote 
for any Southern man, whilst all their Southern Members were 
uniting with fifteen from the North in support of a Northern 
candidate. That their principles were, the preservation of 
State equality, of religious freedom and of the rights of foreign 
born citizens. Against the first the Republicans openly warred; 
against the last two, the Americans in secret and oath-bound 
associations. To abandon their candidate and present another 
entertaining the same views, could conciliate no support; to 
present or to accept one of different views would be to dissolve 
their organization and prove derelict to their well settled convic¬ 
tions. Hence, being in a minority and consequently not re¬ 
sponsible for the conduct of affairs, they had no compromises 
to offer, and no terms to make. 

Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, who voted for Mr. Ranks through 
the day of Mr. Campbell s withdrawal, thenceforward abso¬ 
lutely refused to do so, for which he had been virulently as¬ 
sailed. This refusal he predicated upon the arrogant determi¬ 
nation of that gentlemen’s friends to force him upon the party, 
without regard to his strength or to the claims of others, and 


13 


also upon the dishonorable means (some of which he could not 
communicate without breach of confidence) used to secure his 
success. 

Other personal altercations occurred, and personal explana¬ 
tions were made. Mr. Allison, of Pennsylvania, (Republican,) 
concurred with his colleague, Mr. Jones, (Democrat,) though 
for a different motive, that in their State, Know-Nothingism 
and Free-Soilism went hand in hand ; w T hile Mr. Campbell, of 
the same State, (K. N.,) utterly denied this, declaring that him¬ 
self voted for Mr. Banks, not because he was anti-Nebraska, 
but because he was the impersonation of Americanism. Yet 
the latter’s claim to Americanism was, on the other hand, ve¬ 
hemently repelled—a question he did not think proper to set¬ 
tle. When taunted, however, with having expressed his wil¬ 
lingness, under certain circumstances, to “let the Union slide,” 
he professed a pious zeal for that Uuion, the only danger to 
which he detected in the aggressions of the South. And Mr. 
Brooks, of South Carolina, perhaps not unwilling that such ex¬ 
pressions should come more generally into vogue, since the 
greater the numbers that use them, the fewer are left to ridi¬ 
cule them, sharply reproved the illiberality which condemned 
in Mr. Banks what himself and they would be the first to avow 
under reversed circumstances. 

Silent voting, noisy debate, general (and, it may be particu¬ 
lar ) pledges, having failed to combine a majority on any can¬ 
didate, resort was now had to direct bribery. John J. Pearce, 
a member from Pennsylvania, approached Mr. Millward, of 
the same State, who had been steadily voting for Mr. Fuller, 
with an offer that if he, Millward, would vote for Banks, he 
would make “a good thing of it,” that is, as he explained it, 
Mr. Banks would make him chairman of the Committee on 
Engraving and Lithographing.* Mr. Millward at oncef brought 
the matter to the notice of the House, by whom it was re- 

*Id. 27 December. 

fAs some unsophisticated persons may not understand how “a good thing ” 
could be made of this position, a word of explanation may not be out of 
place. A member of the House, though not of the committee, explained to 



14 


ceived with shouts of laughter, as the most comical event of 
the session. But, for the benefit of a few gentlemen, who 
could not appreciate the wit of the proposition, Mr. Banks dis¬ 
claimed his agent’s authority, and Mr. Pearce consented to as¬ 
sume the double infamy of having attempted to bribe a fellow- 
member, and of having attempted to bribe him with a fraudu¬ 
lent promise. He admitted having made the promise ; he ad¬ 
mitted having asked Mr. Banks for authority to offer Mr. 
Millward a consideration for his vote, but said that that virtu¬ 
ous gentleman answered—what the reader must be satisfied of 
by this time—that he could make no pledges !* 


me what would be the process, (and he was seeking at the time to effect an 
arrangement about a bid then, he said, pending before the committee,) in 
this wise : we find, for instance, from the report of the Superintendent of 
Public Printing, (Miscellaneous Documents H. R ,3d session, 34th Congress, 
No. 14,) that for the engravings acccompanying the reports of the Commis¬ 
sioner of Patents on Arts and Manufactures, and on Agriculture, the Senate 
paid $10,844,31. Now suppose the same or any other contractor had offered 
to furnish the same engravings for the copies ordered by the House, at the 
same price, which was evidently a remunerative one, and another contractor 
asks for the same job $41,629,57, which was what the House Committee 
paid, here is a difference of $30,785,26, to be distributed by the successful 
bidder as a bonus among his more successful employers. Every reader will 
understand that the whole cost of an engraving is in the preparation of the 
plate, and is not varied by the consideration whether 1 copy or 100,000 are 
to be struck from it. 

The Committee on Printing was another by which “ a good thing ” might 
have been made. Mr. Farnham, a most responsible stationer of Washing¬ 
ton City, offered to bind the House Documents, octavo volumes, for 10 cents 
each, and quartos for 33% cents each. The law limits the price of binding 
octavos to 12% cents per volume, leaving the rest to the discretion of the 
committee. They accordingly awarded the contract to a back-woods editor, 
giving him for octavo volumes \2% cents, for quartos 50 cents. Already 
$250,000 have been appropriated for binding House Documents, and more 
will probably be called for. But upon this amount, averaging the difference 
between Farnham’s bid and that of his successful competitor, at only 35 per 
cent, and it shows the “ good thing ” of $87,500 to be divided amongst—who 
can tell? And although the committee would not entrust the work to Mr. 
Farnham, the committee’s employee did, just transferring the contract, and 
performing no other labor than that of pocketing and, it may be, of distri¬ 
buting the excess. 

This subject is too large for a note, and I will probably resume it in an¬ 
other place, adding simply here, that the member who spoke to me of his 
contemplated arrangements about the engravings, said he had no understand¬ 
ing with any one of the committee, though he knew the bids before they 
were officially offered, and that I do not know that the Printing Committee 
was ever charged with corruption. I give facts, leaving inferences to the 
“ charitable censure ” of the public. 

*C. G. Dec. 27, 1855. 

The debate that ensued elicited the further information that 



15 


this same reverend broker in corruption, (for he was a Methodist 
parson,) had solicited the votes of his colleagues for Mr. Banks 
under the positive assurance that, if elected, he would arrange 
his Committees with the special view of promoting Pennsylvania 
interests. This promise was deemed necessary because it was 
known Mr. Banks had retained of his democratic education 
nothing but an ardent advocacy of Free trade, while every 
Pennsylvania Member who could be induced to vote for him was 
a protectionist from interest as well as conviction. To relieve 
their candidate from the charge of making so nefarious a trade 
for votes, Mr. Pearce and Mr. Campbell, (of Pa.) who, as well 
as Mr. Covode, had staked their veracity upon his intentions in 
this regard, curiously explained the grounds of their confidence. 
It seems that each had convinced the other, who in turn con¬ 
vinced his convincer, that Mr. Banks was “ a gentleman of high 
character,” and this premise being granted, the conclusion was 
inevitable. For they argued, “any gentleman of high charac¬ 
ter,” will constitute his Committees with a special eye to Penn¬ 
sylvania interests; but Mr. Banks is “a gentleman of high char¬ 
acter; ” therefore he will constitute his Committees, &c. It is, 
perhaps, a sign of the degeneracy of this age, that few can be 
found willing to risk their reputation, and the interests of their 
State upon a syllogism like this; but very few td credit, the ex¬ 
istence of such a trustful nature and such childlike simplicity in 
others. The presumption, indeed, would rather be that a man 
of honest convictions would endeavor so to organize the House 
as to promote that policy which he believes to be beneficial to 
the whole country. Certainly considering that he had no dis¬ 
position to meet the checks of his friends upon him in the shape 
of pledges, never was unfortunate “ gentleman of high charac¬ 
ter ” so drawn upon before. 

Mr. Alexander K. Marshall, of Kentucky, now begged the 
House to adjourn for the day, stating that he had information 
of facts more disgraceful than any which had yet been elicited, 
and which he had no doubt he would be able to array and to 
prove in the morning. “I have no reference,” he said, “to 


16 


rumors, no reference to the visionary floating reports of the 
day, no reference to bar-room conversations; but I have refer¬ 
ence to direct charges which have been made, which I believe 
will be made again, and of which, I have no doubt, there is 
abundant proof—charges, I repeat, which if made and proved 
here, will prevent any honorable man of any party from con¬ 
tinuing to give his vote for the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Banks,”) That candidate’s friends resisted the motion 
for adjournment, declaring he was triumphantly acquitted of 
charges they would not allow to be made; that, like pure gold, 
he shone the brighter for the rubbing he had got; and the vo¬ 
ting was resumed. After this exhibition of the taste and mor¬ 
als of the majority, any proof of corruption would only have 
brought ridicule upon the witness, and the subject was suffered 
to sleep. 

The President of the United States, meanwhile, had been 
regarding these scenes not only with the indignation of a citi¬ 
zen, but with the impatience of a party leader, anxious himself 
to step into the arena and have a bout with his foes. Deter¬ 
mined no longer to be occluded, on the last day of the year his 
private secretary appeared at the door of the House with the 
annual message, the announcement of which occasioned min¬ 
gled surprise and rage. One gentleman moved that “ the pa¬ 
pers” be returned to the person who brought them ; another 
that the message be read, assuming it was already received • 
another, that it be received and read; another, that * it be re¬ 
ceived and laid on the table. 

The Democrats argued, That the Constitution provides that 
the House of Representatives shall elect a Speaker, which is a 
constitutional recognition of its being a House before its or¬ 
ganization, since otherwise it must have a Speaker before it 
could elect a Speaker; that a Senate and a House constitute a 
Congress, with which, under the 3d Section of the 2d Article 
of the Constitution, the President may communicate at any 
time he thinks it for the public interest; that the Executive 
had heretofore refrained from any attempt to do so before the 


17 


Houses were organized, simply because that result had always 
been obtained in due season ; that it was possible the informa¬ 
tion he had to communicate would be so important as to hasten 
the election of a Speaker; and that while the House could not 
act upon the suggestions of the message in its present state, it 
was its duty to hear them ; and a case was cited in which mes¬ 
sages had for many days passed between the King, the House 
of Lords and the Commous of England, before the latter had 
elected their Speaker. 

The Republicans contended that the President could commu¬ 
nicate only with Congress , a term by no means applicable to a 
body, one branch of which was unorganized, having no mouth - 
piece through which to express an opinion; that the law of 
1789 requires, that the Speaker and the members shall be sworn 
in before any business shall be transacted ; that if the conside¬ 
ration of this message were business, the law would be violated; 
if it were not business, it was improperly before them ; that 
being in violation of all precedent, it was at best an arrogant 
attempt covertly to rebuke a co-ordinate branch, and if, as was 
intimated, it was designed to affect their action, then it was a 
gross violation of privilege. 

Various questions of order were raised, and at last it was 
resolved to lay the pending question of order along with the 
papers on the table. But the President’s object was attained, 
the message having been received and read in the Senate, and 
ordered to be printed. 

It sets out with an intimation of serious impending difficul¬ 
ties with Great Britain, which was doubtless the card upon 
which his friends relied to force an immediate organization of 
the House. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty stipulates that neither 
power “ will ever occupy or fortify or colonize or assume or ex¬ 
ercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa-Rica, the Mosquito 
coast, or any part of Central America.” Yet that power still 
exercises large authority over the Mosquito coast, covering the 
entire length of Nicaragua and part of Costa-Rica; regards the 
the Balize as her absolute domain, though she had often by 
3 


18 


treaty renounced any such pretentions, and is extending its 
limits at the expense of Honduras; and formally colonized a 
considerable group known as the Bay Islands, which rightfully 
belong to the same State. She justifies herself on the ground 
that the treaty is prospective only, and was not designed to re¬ 
linquish any claim she had set up prior to 19th April 1850, the 
date of its execution. He treated with proper scorn this sub¬ 
terfuge of a nation which in its modern policy has combined 
the vices of two distant eras of its own history—the rapacity 
of the Saxon pirate with the canting hypocrisy of the Round¬ 
head and which is never so much to be suspected of a design 
to rob its neighbor as when in a pious paroxism before its God. 
He calls attention also to the attempts to draw recruits from 
this country against Russia, to be enrolled and enlisted in Hali¬ 
fax, which the British Government acknowledged to be promp¬ 
ted by itself, with a full knowledge of our neutrality laws. 

He had on the 14th April, 1855, notified the Danish Govern¬ 
ment that the treaty existing between us should terminate one 
year from that date. This was to relieve our commerce from 
the imposition of tolls on all vessels and cargoes passing into or 
from the Baltic sea, which he regards as analogous to the tribute 
formerly levied by the Barbary States upon nations whose ships 
frequented the Mediterranean. 

The difference with France respecting the French Consul at 
San Francisco, and that with Greece, growing out of the se¬ 
questration of property belonging to the American Consul at 
Athens, had been satisfactorily adjusted. 

Spain had made compensation for the illegal siezure of the 
Black Hawk, and for the arbitrary revocation, at the end of 
three months, of a decree authorizing the importation during 
six months, of certain building materials and provisions into 
Cuba, by which American citizens had been seriously injured. 

Wrongs done by the Mexican Government had been submit¬ 
ted to because of its disturbed condition; and strenuous efforts 
had been made to prevent our citizens from interfering in the 
affairs of Nicaragua. 


19 


The receipts from all sources, during the fiscal year ending 
3d June, 1855, had been $65,003,930; the expenditures, $56, 
365,293 ; the payments of public debt, $9,844,528. The bal¬ 
ance in the Treasury 1st July, 1855, $18,931,976 ; the re¬ 
ceipts and estimated receipts for the year, $67,918,734, afford¬ 
ing as available resources for the current fiscal year, $86,856, 
710. The estimated expenditures, $71,226,846, including the 
payment of $3,000,000, to Mexico and of $7,750,000 to Texas; 
the remaining public debt is less than $40,000,000. 

The gross receipts of the Post Office Department for the last 
fiscal year, $7,342,136, the gross expenditure, $9,968,342. 

The aggregate of public land sold, located with military 
scrip on land warrants, taken up under grants for roads, and 
selected by States as swamp lands, during the fiscal year, was 
24,557,409 acres, the portion sold being 15,729,524 acres 
which yielded $11,485,380, 

In the Territory of Kansas there have been acts prejudicial 
to good order, but as yet none have occurred under circumstances 
to justify the interposition of the Federal Executive. That 
could only be in case of obstruction to Federal laws, or of or¬ 
ganized resistance to territorial laws, assuming the charac¬ 
ter of insurrection. 

He then reviews the relations existing between the several 
States of the Confederation, insisting on the original absolute 
sovereignty of each, as soon as the tie between them and Eng¬ 
land was severed, “ the political result of which was the founda¬ 
tion of a Federal Republic of the free white men of the colo¬ 
nies. As for the subject races, whether African or Indian, the 
wise and brave statesmen of that day being engaged in no ex¬ 
travagant scheme of social reform, left them as they were.” 
In forming the present Constitution, the States jealously re¬ 
served every attribute of sovereignty not essentially necessary to 
be entrusted to the General Government. This Government, 
both by the power enumerated and by those not enumerated, 
and therefore refused to it, cannot attack or defend slavery, 
except as against invasion or domestic violence. “ If one State 


20 


ceases to respect the rights of another, and obtrusively med¬ 
dles with its local interests—if a portion of the States assume 
to impose their institutions on the others, or refuse to fulfil 
their obligations to them—we are no longer united, friendly 
States, but distracted, hostile ones.” “ It has been a matter of 
painful regret to see States, conspicuous for their services in 
founding this Republic, and equally sharing its advantages, 
disregard their constitutional obligations to it. Although con¬ 
scious of their inability to remedy admitted and palpable social 
evils of their own, and which are completely within their jurisdic¬ 
tion, they engage in the offensive and hopeless undertaking of re¬ 
forming the domestic institutions of other States wholly be¬ 
yond their control and authority. In the vain pursuit of ends 
by them unattainable, and which they may not legally attempt 
to compass, they peril the very existence of the Constitution, 
and all the countless benefits which it has conferred. While 
the people of the Southern States confine their attention to 
their own affairs, not presuming officiously to intermeddle with 
the Northern States, too many of the inhabitants of the latter 
are permanently organized in associations to inflict injury on 
the former, by wrongful acts, which would be cause of war 
as between foreign powers and only fail to be such in our sys¬ 
tem because perpetrated under cover of the Union.” And yet 
the States “ which either promote or tolerate attacks on the 
rights of person and of property in other States, to disguise 
their own injustice, pretend or imagine, and constantly aver, 
that they, whose constitutional rights are thus systematically 
assailed, are themselves the aggressors.” The particular cause 
of complaint against the South, is to be found in the political 
organization of the new Territories. 

Yet he declares that the concession of the vast territory 
north-west of the Ohio River to the interests and opinions of 
the North was in a great measure the act of Virginia and of the 
South. Louisiana was an acquisition in territory, as in every 
other respect, no less to the North than the South. Florida 
was but the transfer to us of territory east of the Missis- 


21 


sippi in exchange for large territory transferred to Spain 
west of that river. The adoption of the Constitution abro¬ 
gated the ordinance of 1787, and the Missouri Compromise, 
unconstitutional in its inception, was submitted to by the South 
as a sacrifice to the cause of the Union, though violative of the 
treaty of Louisiana, while the North received it with angry 
complaint, because it did not concede all they demanded. 
Texas was annexed with the institutions she had chosen, in 
spite of the same fanatical opposition which had always opposed 
the aggrandizement of the country, if at the same time it did not 
totally enure to the benefit of one section. The struggle was 
renewed in organizing the territories acquired from Mexico, and 
again the principles of popular sovereignty triumphed, and the 
true principle, of leaving each State and Territory to regulate 
its own laws of labor, had acquired such strength that by com¬ 
mon consent it was applied to Washington Territory. And fi¬ 
nally the Kansas-Nebraska bill acknoweldged in terms, the prin¬ 
ciple recognized by the legislation attending the organization of 
Utah, New Mexico, and Washington. 

The voting proceeded with the results which the public had 
learned to regard as inevitable until Wednesday, the 9th Janu¬ 
ary, 1856, when it was announced that the Democratic caucus 
had resolved to resist any adjournment until a Speaker should 
be elected, and the other side resolved to accommodate them 
with a protracted session. Members accordingly laid in a sup¬ 
ply of whiskey, sandwiches, and speeches to last out the week, 
which Mr. Paine of N. C., declared ended at day-light on Sun¬ 
day morning, “ though some men,” he added, with contemptu¬ 
ous compassion for their ignorance, “ think Sunday commences 
at 12 o’clock Saturday night.” 

It would be too tedious to recount minutely what occurred. 
There was much laughter without wit; much personality with¬ 
out point; set discourses which meant nothing; and explana¬ 
tions which elucidated nothing. Mr. Campbell arraigned Mr. 
Giddings, indeed, for a letter published by the latter, of which 
an account has heretofore been given, and Mr. Burnett, of 


22 


Kentucky, called attention to a statement supposed to have 
emanated from Mr. Kelsey, the future chairman of the En¬ 
graving committee. A short time before these gentlemen had 
paired off, and the latter on visiting his constituents, not un¬ 
willing to let them see how wise a choice they had made, 
boasted of some sharp practice, which was thus admiringly re¬ 
corded in the Genesee (N. Y.) Democrat: “ Our Congressman, 
Hon. Wm. H. Kelsey, made us a flying visit a few days since, 
returning to his seat in the House on Monday. It is gratifying 
to his constituents to observe that, during the struggle for 
Speaker, Mr. Kelsey’s vote has uniformly been placed where it 
will do the most effective service in the cause of freedom. In 
order to make a visit to his home, he 4 paired off’ with a mem¬ 
ber from Alabama—a Richardson man—and Major Williams, 
of Monroe, whose vote has been among the scattering, making, 
if we may be allowed the expression, a triple pair.” Mr. Kel¬ 
sey, of course, denied the fraud, and attempted to account for 
his friend’s mistake, in doing which he denounced some one of 
his District, who had enclosed the strip from the Democrat to 
various individuals in Washington. “ I do not propose,” he 
added, “ to notice any thing coming from that quarter . When 
any charge against me has a has a respectable or even a decent 
backer , I will meet every question which gentlemen here or 
elsewhere choose to raise against me.” Mr. Eurnett said, “I 
want to know to whom the gentleman applied the latter por¬ 
tion of his remark ? ” Mr. Kelsey. “ I applied it to the writer 
of the letter enclosing the slip .” 

I have forborne to record the scenes of disorder and confu¬ 
sion which had marked almost every day of the session. As 
the contest was protracted the attendance at the Capitol of the 
idle public congregated in Washington became greater and 
their interest more boisterously expressed. Noisy factions di¬ 
vided the galleries no less than the floor, each cheering its 
champions with vehement applause, and expressing its scorn of 
their opponents by groans and hisses; rival orators began to 
address them for sympathy and encouragement; and, as in a 


23 


theatre, stamps, clapping of hands, and every noisy exhibition 
of approbation welcomed the appearance of a favorite actor or 
the enunciation of a favorite party catch-word. But on this 
occasion “the gods,” hopeless of equaling the rank license 
below, subsided into sobriety, and the “ lord of misrule ” 
held almost exclusive sway among the members. One gen¬ 
tleman would raise points of order on the roll-call, and 
insist on his rights, as the representative of so proud and 
intelligent a district, to address himself to the no-question be¬ 
fore the House; another held maudlin debate with his chair, be¬ 
fore which he stood, (when not lurching,) and gesticulated with 
irresistible gravity; amidst the buz of voices and the noise of 
gentlemen passing to or from the refreshment room, a dozen 
w T ere at the same time screaming in their loudest key to the 
bewildered clerk; while loud snores from the sofas and desks 
around attested that the “flow of soul ” had incapacitated many 
from enjoying this “feast of reason.” At last those who had 
resolved to test the qualifications of the candidate by the 
physical endurance of his adherents, began to tire of the nota¬ 
ble scheme. They found, to their surprise, that not a vote had 
been changed to either side: that nothing is more persistent 
than"party spirit exalted with alcoholic stimulants, and that the 
worst way to conciliate a patriot is to wake him up, when fuddled, 
every half hour for a fresh vote. Accordingly, at 8 o'clock 
Thursday morning, the House adjourned till 12 the next day. 

The House now resolved to request each of the candidates 
to answer the following questions, originally intended by the 
mover for Mr. Bichardson alone:* 

1. Whether he regards the Kansas-Nebraska bill as pro¬ 
motive of the formation of free States in that Territory. 

Mr. Richardson did not believe slavery would go there, but 
this did not govern his vote, which was given because he thought 
the majority of the people there should determine this question 
for themselves. Mr. Banks did not think it tended to the form¬ 
ation of free States, as it repealed the prohibition of slavery. 


*Id. January 12. 





24 

Mr. Fuller did not believe it promotive of the formation of ei¬ 
ther free or slave States. 

2. Is the Wilmot proviso constitutional ? Did he in 1850 
oppose its application to the Territories acquired from Mexico 
only because he thought it unnecessary, the local law having 
already abolished it ? And did he declare that if the territo¬ 
rial bills, silent on this subject, should be defeated,’he would 
vote for others with the Wilmot proviso ? 

Mr. Richardson believed Congress had power to exclude 
slavery from the Territories, though its exercise would be ur¬ 
gent. He had hastily said he would vote for Territorial bills 
with the Wilmot proviso, if those free from it did not pass, and 
he now repudiated the sentiment as unjust and improper. Mr. 
Banks thought Congress had the power and ought to exercise 
it. Mr. Fuller held that Congress had no authority to interfere 
with the subject at all. 

8. Does the Constitution carry slavery into the Territories ? 
Mr. Richardson answered affirmatively, but since it required 
territorial laws for its protection, the question was practically 
with the people there. Mr. Banks held the negative, and Mr. 
Fuller, the affirmative. 

To other questions Mr. Richardson responded that he be¬ 
longed to no secret political organization ; was opposed to abol¬ 
ishing slavery in the District of Columbia, national dock yards, 
&c ; discriminated against no man for his birth place or religion, 
and believed the negro inferior to the white man. Mr. Banks 
would say nothing on Americanism, and while he believed all 
men are created equal, he thought the relative powers of the 
white and black races could be determined only by their endu¬ 
rance, and he would express no opinion until it could be seen 
which would absorb the other. He would inhibit slavery in 
Kansas and Nebraska, and had no opinion on the subject of 
abolishing it in the District, or about the tariff. Mr. Fuller was 
opposed to all Congressional legislation on slavery; did not 
believe in the equality of whites and ^blacks, and interfered with 
no man’s religion. 




25 


On the 23d January, Mr. Richardson stated that on the next 
day he should withdraw his name, which he accordingly did* 
122 votings having been had. In his place the Democats took 
up James L. Orr, of South Carolina, a gentleman of much ex¬ 
perience and middling capacity, less extreme in his Southern 
views than most politicians of his State. The same day a mes¬ 
sage from the President was received, and, after much violent 
debate and confusion, was read. It states that the Govenor of 
Kansas had so neglected his duties as to defer the first meeting 
of its legislature to the 2d July, 1855, though himself appointed 
29th June, 1854. Before the requisite preparation for the elec¬ 
tion of a legislature, a delegate had been elected to Congress, 
who took his seat without challenge. The anti-slavery party 
had determined to force their views upon the Territory by a 
propagandist colorization of it, which naturally awakened in¬ 
tense indignation in the contiguous States, and particularly in 
Missouri, whose domestic peace was threatened by the move¬ 
ment. Charges of friends, violence and illegal voting were 
made on all sides; but the Govenor, to whom alone the law con¬ 
fided the duty, canvassed the returns, deduced a large majority 
of the members of the Council and the House to be duly elected, 
and ordered a new election to fill the places of those not prop¬ 
erly returned. He convened the Assembly at Pawnee City, a 
proposed town site which he and others were attempting unlaw¬ 
fully to locate on a military reservation, for which the President 
had removed him and a Court Martial had sentenced an officer 
to be dismissed from the army. After the usual offiicial com¬ 
munications had passed between him and the Assembly, that 
body removed to Shawnee, Missouri, on which ground alone 
the Governor refused to recognize the validity of their acts. A 
delegate was elected under a law of this Assembly, and subse¬ 
quently a portion of tho people, without color of law, proceeded 
to elect another delegate. Following upon this movement was 
a more important one of the same character. A mere party of 
the inhabitants, without law, summoned a Convention to frame 
a Constitutution, and elected a Governor and a Representative 
4 


26 


to Congress as a State. This is of a revolutionary tendency* 
and will become treasonable insurrection if sustained by forcible 
organized resistance to the authority of the General Govern¬ 
ment, in which event the President will use the force at his 
command to maintain order. He recommends that Congress 
authorize the inhabitants of Kansas, as soon as they shall be of 
sufficient numbers, to form a State government, and asks a spe¬ 
cial appropriation to defray the expenses that may be incurred 
in executing the laws and maintaining public order. 

On the 2d of February the House resolved that if, after three 
trials* no candidate should have a majority, then the one having 
the greatest number of votes should be declared Speaker. Im¬ 
mediately after Mr. Orr withdrew, and his colleague, William 
Aiken, a gentleman not of great ability, indeed, but of spotless 
integrity and exceedingly amiable character, who* moreover* 
could be supported by the National Americans, since he had 
attended no Democratic caucus, was nominated in his stead. 
Mr. Fuller also withdrew, but was to the last supported by six 
National Americans, in consequence of which Mr. Banks re¬ 
ceived 103 votes; Mr. Aiken, 100; scattering, 11, it being 
the 133d voting. 

After the House adopted the plurality rule the excitement 
became intense. The floor w r as crowded with strangers, who 
had no right there; it was impossible to keep the Members in 
their seats or preserve the slightest semblance of order; and 
the announcement of the result was received with repeated 
cheers and hisses. Thus ended the fiercest legistation conflict, 
unaccompanied by personal violence, that ever occurred, and 
Mr. Banks was inducted to a seat he had conqured from a most 
reluctant house by showing that he had the power and the pur¬ 
pose to keep it for ever unorganized rather than withdraw his 
claims. His partisans had denounced as the basest treachery 
every attempt to look elsewhere in the Republican ranks for an 
available candieate; lugubrious complaints were at once made 
that the enemy, who, it was ascertained, were just prepared to 
surrender, had been inspirited by such treason to take up their 


27 


arms again; and Mr. Campbell incurred additional odium be¬ 
cause it was demonstrated by the vote on a Resolution declaring 
him Speaker, (16 January,) though against his will, that if the 
Banks men had voted for him he would have been elected. 

By resolutions William Cullem, of Tennessee, (National 
American,) was elected Clerk; Adam J. Glossbrenner, of Penn¬ 
sylvania, (Democrat,) Sergeant at Arms; Nathan Darling, of 
N. Y., (Know Nothing,) Door Keeper ; and Robert Morriss, of 
Pennsylvania, (American,) Post Master. On the 6th February, 
nominations were made for Public Printer, and on the 13th, 
after eleven votings, Cornelius Wendell, (Democrat,) was elected. 

It may seem strange that a House so intensely anti-demo¬ 
cratic, should have elected Democrats to two important offices. 
But Mr. Glossbrenner, in addition to being a very good officer, 
had held over the same position from the last session, and while 
the protracted struggle for Speaker was going on, many of its 
valiant participants would have been starved into a surrender 
but for his timely aid. The gratitude that prompted the elec¬ 
tion of Mr. Wendell is supposed to have been of that more or¬ 
dinary kind which is thankful for favors expected, and will 
become the subject of particular examination hereafter. 

The organization of the House was completed by the annun¬ 
ciation of the following committees : 

Committee on Elections —Israel Washburn of Maine, Alexan¬ 
der H. Stephens of Georgia, Cooper K. Watson of Ohio, Fran¬ 
cis E. Spinner of New York, Mordecai Oliver of Missouri, John 
Hickman of Pennsylvania, Schuyler Colfax of Indiana, William 
R. Smith of Alabama, and John A. Bingham, of Ohio. 

Of Ways and Means —Lewis D. Campbell of Ohio, William 
A. Howard of Michigan, Howell Cobb of Georgia, George W. 
Jones of Tennessee, Henry Winter Davis of Maryland, Russell 
Sage of New York, John S. Phelps of Missouri, James H. Camp¬ 
bell of Pennsylvania, and Alexander DeWit of Massachusetts. 

On Claims —Joshua R. Giddings of Ohio, John Letcher of 
Virginia, James Bishop of New Jersey, J. Glancey Jones of 
Pennsylvania, George G. Dunn of Indiana, Ebenezer Knowlton 
of Maine, Miles Taylor of Louisiana, William A. Gilbert of New 
York, and Samuel S. Marshall of Illinois. 


On Commerce —Ellihu B. Washburne of Illinois, Edward 
Wade of Ohio, John S. Millson of Virginia, John McQueen of 
South Carolina, Job R. Tyson of Pennsylvania, Luther M. Ken- 
nett of Missouri, Guy R. Pelton of New York, Linus B. Comins 
of Massachusetts, and George Eustis of Louisiana. 

On Public Lands —Henry Bennett of New York, Aaron Har¬ 
lan of Ohio, Williamson R. W. Cobb of Alabama, James J. 
Bindley of Missouri, Elisha D. Cullen of Delaware, David S. 
Walbridge of Michigan, Samuel Brenton of Indiana, Augustus 
E. Maxwell of Florida, and James Thorington of Iowa. 

On the Post Office and Post Roads .—Daniel Mace of Indi¬ 
ana, Jesse 0. Norton of Illinois, Thomas. T. Flagler of New 
York, David Barclay of Pennsylvania, Timothy C. Day of 
Ohio, Paulus Powell of Virginia, Percy Walker of Alabama, 
John M. Wood of Maine, and Philip T. Herbert of California. 

On the District of Columbia. —James Meacham of Vermont, 
Edward Dodd of New York, William 0. Goode of Virginia, 
William Cumback of Indiana, John Dick of Pennsylvania, J. 
Morrison Harris of Maryland, Hendley S. Bennett of Missis¬ 
sippi, Mark Trafton of Massachussetts, and Peter H. Bell of 
Texas. 

On the Judiciary. —George A. Simmons of New York, 
Humphrey Marshall of Kentucky, Lucian Barbour of Indiana, 
John S. Caskie of Virginia, Samuel Galloway of Ohio, Samp¬ 
son W. Harris of Alabama, William A. Lake of Mississippi, 
Abraham Wakeman of New York, and Mason W. Tappan of 
New Hampshire. 

On Revolutionary Claims. —David Ritchie of Pennsylvania, 
Ambrose S. Murray of New York, William Smith of Virginia, 
William H. English of Indiana, Thomas J. D. Fuller of Maine, 
James C. Allen of Illinois, Isaiah D. Clawson of New Jersey, 
Aaron H. Cragin of New Hampshire, and J. Reece Emrie of 
Ohio. 

On Public Expenditures. —Sidney Dean of Connecticut, 
John Covode of Pennsylvania, John Kelly of New York, 
Richard Mott of Ohio, John J. Pearce of Pennsylvania, George 
Vail of New Jersey, John M. Elliott of Kentucky, Henry 
Waldron of Michigan, and Lawrence O’B. Branch of North 
Carolina. 

On Private Land Claims. —Gilchrist Porter of Missouri, 
Valentine B. Horton of Ohio, James Thorington of Iowa, Em¬ 
erson Etheridge of Tennessee, Thomas F. Bowie of Maryland, 
John M. Sandidge of Louisiana, Philip T. Herbert of Califor- 


29 


ilia, David F. Robison of Pennsylvania, and Thomas R. Hor¬ 
ton of New York. 

On Manufactures. —Ezra Clark of Connecticut, Jonathan 
Knight of Pennsylvania, Martin J. Crawford of Georgia, Phil¬ 
emon Bliss of Ohio, Nathaniel B. Durfee of Rhode Island, 
Francis S. Edwards of New York, James F. Dowdell of Ala¬ 
bama, John P. Campbell of Kentucky, and James B. Ricaud 
of Maryland. 

On Agriculture. —David P. Halloway of Indiana, Charles 
Ready of Tennessee, Galusha A. Grow of Pennsylvania, Peter 
H. Bell of Texas, Lewis D. Campbell of Ohio, Edwin B. Mor¬ 
gan of New York, Alvah Sabin of Vermont, Elisha D. Cullen 
of Delaware, and Fayette McMullen of Virginia. 

On Indian Affairs. —Benjamin Bringle of New York, James 
L. Orr of South Carolina, Charles Billinghurst of Wisconsin, 
Alfred B. Greenwood of Arkansas, Benjamin F. Leiter of 
Ohio, Robert B. Hall of Massachusetts, Lemuel Todd of Penn¬ 
sylvania, Samuel Caruthers of Missouri, and Philip T. Herbert 
of California. 

On Military Affairs. —John A. Quitman of Mississippi, 
John Allison of Pennsylvania, William R. Sapp of Ohio, 
Charles J. Faulkner of Virginia, John Williams of New York, 
Benjamin Stanton of Ohio, James W. Denver of California, 
James Buffington of Massachusetts, and Cadwalader C. Wash- 
burne of Wisconsin. 

On the Militia. —John C. Kunkel of Pennsylvania, Thomas 
R. Whitney of New York, John Scott Harrison of Ohio, Henry 
W. Hoffman of Maryland, Nathaniel G. Foster of Georgia, 
John M. Parker of New York, Albert G. Watkins of Tennes¬ 
see, Daniel B. Wright of Mississippi, and Robert B. Hall of 
Massachusetts. 

On Naval Affairs. —Samuel P. Benson of Maine, James S, 
T. Stranahan of New York, Thomas S. Bocock of Virginia, 
Solomon G. Haven of New York, Warren Winslow of North 
Carolina, James S. Seward of Georgia, Timothy Davis of Mas¬ 
sachusetts, William W. Boyce of South Carolina, and William 
Millward of Pennsylvania. 

On Foreign Affairs. —Alexander C. M. Pennington of New 
Jersey, Thomas H. Bayly of Virginia, Thomas L. Clingman of 
North Carolina, William Aiken of South Carolina, Henry M, 
Fuller of Pennsylvania, Orsamus B. Matteson of New York, 
Benjamin B. Thurston of Rhode Island, John Sherman of 
Ohio, and Anson Burlingame of Massachusetts. 

On Territories. —Galusha A. Grow of Pennsylvania, Joshua 


30 


R. Giddings of Ohio, Samuel A. Purviance of Pennsylvania, Wil¬ 
liam A. Richardson of Illinois, George S. Houston of Alabama, 
Amos P. Granger of New York, Felix K. Zollicoffer of Ten¬ 
nessee, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, and John S. Perry of 
Maine. 

On Revolutionary Pensions. —Jacob Broom of Pennsylva¬ 
nia, Charles J. Albright of Ohio, Henry A. Edmundson of Vh> 
ginia, Killian Miller of New York, Smith Miller of Indiana, 
Burton Craige of North Carolina, Chauncey L. Knapp of Mas¬ 
sachusetts, John Woodruff of Connecticut, and Augustus Hall 
of Iowa. 

On Invalid Pensions. —Andrew Oliver of New York, James 
Pike of New Hampshire, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania, 
John H. Savage of Tennessee, William W. Welch of Connec¬ 
ticut, Albert G. Talbott of Kentucky, Samuel Dickson of New 
York, John H. Lumpkin of Georgia, and George R. Robbins of 
New Jersey. 

On Roads and Canals. —James Knox of Illinois, Jonas A. 
Hughston of New York, Thomas Ruffin of North Carolina, 
Harvey D. Scott of Indiana, George W. Peck of Michigan, 
Oscar F. Moore of Ohio, William Barksdale of Mississippi, 
Samuel C. Bradshaw of Pennsylvania, and Albert Rust of Ar¬ 
kansas. 

On Patents. —Edwin B. Morgan of New York, Calvin C. 
Chaffee of Massachusetts, Samuel A. Smith of Tennessee, Rob¬ 
ert T. Paine of North Carolina, and John R. Edie of Pennsyl¬ 
vania. 

On Public Buildings and G-rounds. —Edward Ball of Ohio, 
Samuel Todd of Pennsylvania, Richard C. Puryear of North 
Carolina, Lawrence M. Keitt of South Carolina, and Anthony 
E. Roberts of Pennsylvania. 

On Revisal and Unfinished Business. —Alvah Sabin of Ver¬ 
mont, Ebenezer Knowlton of Maine, Hiram Warner of Georgia, 
Bayard Clark of New York, and Eli S. Shorter of Alabama. 

On Accounts. —Benjamin B. Thurston of Rhode Island, 
John Cadwalader of Pennsylvania, Mathias S. Nichols of Ohio, 
James Buffington of Massachusetts, and John S. Carlile of Vir¬ 
ginia. 

On Mileage .—William H. Sneed of Tennessee, Preston S. 
Brooks of South Carolina William H. Kelsey of New York, 
Lemuel D. Evans of Texas, and James H. Woodworth of Illi¬ 
nois. 

On Engraving. —William H. Kelsey of New York, William 


31 


S. Damrell of Massachusetts, and John Y. Wright of Tennes¬ 
see. 

On Expenditures in the State Department. —Preston S. 
Brooks of South Carolina, Samuel A. Smith of Tennessee, Asa 
Packer of Pennsylvania, Rufus H. King of New York, and 
William S. Damrell of Massachusetts. 

On Expenditures in the Treasury Department. —Henry 
Waldron of Michigan, Daniel Wells of Wisconsin, Alexander 
K. Marshall of Kentucky, Zedekiah Kidwell of Virginia, Isaiah 
D. Clawson of New Jersey. 

On Expenditures in the War Department. —Aaron H, 
Craigin of New York, William W. Yalk of New York, Joshua 
H. Jewett of Kentucky, Thomas Rivers of Tennessee, and John 
Covode of Pennsylvania. 

On Expenditures in the Navy Department —Thomas L. Har¬ 
ris of Illinois, John Wheeler of New York, Cadwalader C. 
Washburne of Wisconsin, Warner L. Underwood of Kentucky, 
and John Y. Wright of Tennessee. 

On Expenditures in the Post Office Department —John M. 
Pettit of Indiana, Leander M. Cox of Kentucky, John Williams 
of New York, Henry C. Burnett of Kentucky, and Edwin G. 
Reade of North Carolina. 

On Expenditures on the Public Buildings. —Fayette McMuL 
lin of Virginia, Andrew Z. McCarty of New York, James A. 
Stewart of Maryland, Samuel F. Swope of Kentucky, and 
Robert P. Trippe of Georgia. 

Joint Committee on the Library. —William Aiken of South 
Carolina, Job R. Tyson of Pennsylvania, and John U. Pettit 
of Indiana. 

Joint Committee on Printing. —Mathias H. Nichols of Ohio, 
Aaron H. Craigin of New Hampshire, and Thomas T. Flagler 
of New York. 

Joint Committee on Enrolled Bills. —James Pike of New 
Hampshire, and Thomas G. Davidson of Louisiana 


, 









































































: a * <o o 


't, & * 'Am- 

V *7^T> **• ° 0 -T^V n 0 "V * 

°- v »!,’ */♦ m ^<y **•- 


“ ^ * 
m 




* aV-^> 

* A * O, • 


/ V V -A 

a*\g* ^ *'«*. 7 * /v m *^T f ’.o^ a? 'o-.i* a 

C • 1 ' * « 'o A 0 4 ' 0 <* c ' • *• ' • -t Q .A 

cr »WZfe,\ ° 4 <r .\f5$XW. V c ,v^,* o j-» ,■ 

^ * ft*■&&''■-■ * 'K A © ... .;';:^l\ * "fV *V" ''^7 * ^ A 0 £ 





-<°* 


♦ ^ 

% <2A 

<s> 

c\ 0 V * * * ®- > Vs*** 

V* AA •■ 


J>>. 

— ^ 

* * A <, 

•i> o' •”■ 







•^0* 


r ‘\o* v -.-.i. A 

(A • t/ *^ Q .G c O * ® „ 

C° o > .•jSSSW. V. 




.#• ,>’ A ^V, „ 

^ * ■' • -V °^. •«» 

*> V sVV- A C\ .0 . 

•** ^ -life'- A A * 

Av ' >v 



<?*■ o^v ,, '9C V - . v“ * A/ • w^||ljP3p * A 5 

«’ <G V *•.** A m * m * * ,G V <5 

cr . v * * ♦ * o A^ o © 1 9 4 *<$> <A . *>' •« **0 

A* 4’^sW*- v G Stf/177?*: ° m 


ft 







r ^*o 





Q 0 O 



r /' V^’v* 9 \ 


°< 
- ^ 


- aV-^. 

* ♦♦ % •. 




* 

\ * >* > * • • ^ 4 

<‘> 0 °" ®« fs* . s 1 • 

A * m'\\\ri%* m 




". ^0^ .i 

; a °^ *.l 


Is r % 

s v Lv..\**’*’o^ 0 ..... %*"’ V v ,. 

; ; Jfe* : \/ %A '* 

* o wmm - aV^ - N^irmv ^ 

'V ' 0 *»* A <V <^ 'W.*' ,0^ % 'o.i* A 

' &m4Zr /i\ - m v'^ - ^Lft ' ^ 0 






o sy/, 

S V «. 

o o 0 ^ 

<0 V V' V s * * • 

** ^ .a , v 



»• aV^, : 

* A V 
* ^ X?' 

- A <, ♦ 

A o 0 - 9 • 

.A • ^ 





> 


.» >° V V 

°°^ '*^9^' .0° V 

* Sf, / .«•«. 

■■I 

.G v o "m A' A ^ (^ 

* -t**- A V .o-o. *^ ** 


. ♦ o 

^ _ /✓>?_ « . *i 


A 


.0’ 


0 


.o v .# o 0 J * -rr,.* ^ 

► <? 5, * . . v t A**(Osx * ***£> aV * . ® * y^“ V * 


< 




o «*> A *V 


vrA 


% * 

vv 

V>^ * 

r ** ^ 

> ^ » # * lO o * ® • » ^ _ 

-» ^ o • 1 * • ♦ ^O s& c <> N 0 * $ - t • *. ^ 

% ^ 'jRm&ur. ^ ^ 



• cS 0 ^ C 7 ^ 

* V u o> o t-1 

<* V 'T.* 4 <G X o 



<j5 °<* 

* + *> CN - 

<*' Q * ^ 

V X fc ^V' % c\ . 

^ «• ^ ,k % . A «• 


o 

*o -... 

, +o £• ,«-• 

i,\ ° .-r ,• 

*b V 4 

5»« i?A. £°*. •.0i*g>.' iP-A 

*° * :ri j* \^ v - jjifc \,/' \y'/i 

+ •V^:#* </% ifSP-*' > V \. l j| 

<.* ! ^',<^ **. *--\V a- *o, *-: 

A ^ t 0 »-U>. °o ,^' .<-!4“ A \ ,0' t .‘‘A O 

^o* "oi. 4 **o« 


4T * 







^ * o > 

^ • *° ^ 

. n0 V * 



.Ho* 



^ *« % l ; \'^-‘'-> ^ ’ 5 

^ * © w c ■' ,0 *'#,<• a* C> * » » o -n. 

,„„’X/ .4igK\ \/ 4ai\ w'., 

r\ o ^‘.'*' V\V * < V ^j. j » - * 7 ) *^ % r . c '\i- ‘ - « «j ' 

<5\ * </M*. ^ ♦ A~ ^ • '. . * <£ *vj)kw* ^ 

* . v <5* -or * £r^> v ^ ^ ^ 


o * i 




♦ O 1^ V 0 < W ° 4 <^K 

^ • •*_ «-4> ' 



<>. *'•••* A 0 ' , '% '*•* 

/•0' °-k *^ v 0 

•^. 0 < \fMP„ . ■A .-^ . 


4 O . 
3L^ ^ 





^-, .0 »’*® # v’ * ! 

'• ^ / '>Ma^ % $ '* 


* 

^ •..\lsy,* A-' ^ <f> ’. 

A ' , '7VT‘ ,0 r o. '• • - • - A <, - .. • .^ 

* ^ ry • 1 ' * <» O c 6 ' ° * ^ ■ n • •■ ' * 4 ! O 

<► (yJ ^^./yyj^, -r o a" 0 • _r-^^v . ‘‘r fV t 



j. -jr 




4°/6 




* K* ■. ’c J ' _ ” '^ aa, ;jy‘J? 4 k' _ v\n\v> _ 

**‘r>L'* a 0" » m »' v c>a A o^ * 

\ 4* ^ ^ ''fiffix- \ <? »JSS 



♦ ^ ^ • 




r.» % <G 


a v> V 
;* ^ °. 


o 


-V "*° 



. A - .A 


* A V -^ : 

* ♦* % \ 


% 

] ^ 





























































